WTF is a MGTOW? A Glossary

On this blog, MRA does not mean Magnetic Resonance Angiography

For newcomers to this blog, here’s a handy guide to some of the strange acronyms and lingo you’ll encounter here and in the “manosphere” in general. (For a definition of that term, see below.) I will update this entry periodically as needed.

First, the acronyms you’ll see most often here:

MRA: Men’s Rights ActivistMRM: Men’s Rights Movement

MGTOW: Men Going Their Own Way MGHOW: Man Going His Own Way.

Ok, so what do those terms mean?

MRM: TheMen’s Rights Movement: A loosely defined, but largely retrograde, collection of activists and internet talkers who fight for what they see as “men’s rights.” Unlike the original Men’s Movement, which was inspired by and heavily influenced by feminism, the self-described Men’s Rights Movement is largely a reactionary movement; with few exceptions, Men’s Rights Activists (or MRAs) are pretty rabidly antifeminist, and many are frankly and sometimes proudly misogynistic. Those who oppose the MRM are generally not against men’s rights per se; they are opposed to those who’ve turned those two words into a synonym for some pretty backwards notions.

MGTOW: Men Going Their Own Way: As the name suggests, MGTOW is a lot like lesbian separatism, but for straight dudes. MGTOW often talk vaguely about seeking “independence” from western and/or consumer culture, and a few MGTOW try to live that sort of zen existence. But most of those who embrace the term have a deep hostility towards and/or profound distrust of feminists and women in general. Many MGTOW refuse to date “western women” and some try to avoid women altogether. I think the Man Going His Own Way acronym MGHOW adds another layer of confusion to an already awkward acronym, so I use MGTOWer instead.

Some other terms and acronyms you’ll run across here:

Anglosphere: Countries in which English is the primary language, or, more narrowly, those countries that used to be British colonies. They are full of evil Western Women (see below).

Incel: Involuntarily Celibate. A term, and identity, adopted by some dateless guys (as well as some women, but it’s the men we’ll focus on here). While there is nothing shameful about being dateless, or a virgin, or having a really long dry spell sexually — most of us have been there at some point — the term “involuntarily celibate” seems to suggest that the world owes incels sex, and that women who turn down incel men for dates or sex are somehow oppressing them. For those (male, straight) incels who are genuinely socially awkward or phobic, this can be a self-defeating stance that can lead to bitterness towards women. And often does.

Mangina: Derogatory term used by MRAs, MGTOW, etc. to describe guys who disagree with them — e.g., me. You can figure out the various connotations of this term yourself.

The Manosphere: The loose collection of blogs, message boards, and other sites run by and/or read by MRAs, MGTOW, and assorted friendly Pick-up Artists. The primary source of material for this blog.

NAWALT: Not All Women Are Like That. Dudes in the manosphere make so many ridiculous and untrue generalizations about women that they’ve come up with their own little acronym to describe the most common reaction to their nonsense: “not all women are like that.” Remarkably, many seem to think that making a reference to NAWALT is actually some sort of clever rebuttal of their critics.

PUA: Pick-up Artist. PUAs are obsessed with mastering what they see as the ultimate set of techniques and attitudes — known as “Game” — that will enable them to quickly seduce almost any woman they want. There is a vast literature on “game” online, though PUA (insofar as it is not complete bullshit) is at its essence simply a male version of the age-old ploy of “playing hard to get.”

Western Women: Also known as WW. Evil harpies, at least according to many in the manosphere. Contrasted with “foreign women,” a term that (in the manosphere, at least) sometimes refers to all women outside the Anglosphere, but often refers to a subset of these women from poor and/or Eastern countries, mostly Asian, who are regarded as more pliable and thus more desirable to haters of “Ameriskanks” and other WW.

Share this:

Like this:

“First, dude, do you realize that your actual literal argument here is “a double negative is TOTALLY different than a positive”?”

Do I realise saying everyone does the same thing is different from saying nobody does that thing?

“Because, see, I’ve talked to actual experts on trauma, and they all agreed that not only is there no one universal response to trauma, but that trying to pretend nothing happened is among the most common and well-documented initial responses.”

Thus we can assume every human on earth is in trauma cause nothing you just said means experts can spot the difference. Great stuff and another good example of the art of complaining to everything people say and saying nothing yourself. The problem with your argument being after talking to experts you dont have a clue if she was in trauma or not. You wanna assume she was based on not knowing.

The problem with your argument being after talking to experts you dont have a clue if she was in trauma or not. You wanna assume she was based on not knowing.

But you are the one claiming that since she went to work, and hosted her party, that she was a)not traumatized and therefore b) not raped. a. is not necessarily true as people respond to trauma differently, including by internalising or repressing. b. is not necessarily true because rape is not contingent on her being traumatized. If I beat someone within an inch of his life, and after he gets out of the hospital we go out and have beers, that doesn’t mean that I didn’t commit assault. What determines that is whether or not the incident was legally consentual, with the understanding that it could lead to that level of injury.

“Do I realise saying everyone does the same thing is different from saying nobody does that thing?”

Nobody = 0 people = literally no one, anywhere, ever, “does that thing” — most people don’t jump out of perfectly good airplanes, some people enjoy skydiving; the vast majority of people do not amputate their owns limbs, a handful of people have (to survive, eg trapped while hiking, etc)

If we can come up with one example of someone who was raped and went to work the next day, you’re argument is invalid. So all those military rape cases that only got reported when state side again? Your argument is disproven.

“Thus we can assume every human on earth is in trauma cause nothing you just said means experts can spot the difference.”

Wrong again! Thus we can assume any human who experienced a traumatic event recently may go on to show a trauma response regardless whether they are yet or not. No trauma response within the first month is ever PTSD btw, it’s called an acute stress reaction at that point. Note the example wiki uses — “After being attacked and stabbed, Austrian empress Elisabeth of Bavaria boarded a ship, unaware of the severity of her condition as a consequence of an acute stress reaction. Bleeding to death from a puncture wound to the heart, Elisabeth’s last words were, ‘What happened to me?'”

So since she boarded the ship she must not have been stabbed?

“Great stuff and another good example of the art of complaining to everything people say and saying nothing yourself.”

That you spew bullshit at astonishing rates doesn’t somehow make you better than those of us citing our claims. You fail logic, psych, and probably college level courses in general (no, not even studio arts wants you to just totally make shit up, you can’t throw color theory out the window until you can do it well).

“The problem with your argument being after talking to experts you dont have a clue if she was in trauma or not.”

This is true for the first day or two after, yes. Not even experts can tell if reported trauma will result in a trauma response, unless it already has, but it may not have, so wait and see. There’s research suggesting that various methods of altering memory encoding in that period may prevent trauma responses and PTSD later, hilariously, “play tetris” is one of them (I’ll dig that study up in a moment, since I’m sure I just piqued curiosity from the non-trolls).

“You wanna assume she was based on not knowing.”

Yeah that’s what psych does in the first ~48 hours — assume a trauma reaction may occur and treat accordingly, because shock is a common reaction at that point. And I’m not just talking rape here, see the stabbing example above, or review the stories of any of the hikers who’ve amputated their own limbs (try Aron Ralston for a recent example). Hell, or study the Donner Party, you can find example after example of “they’re dead, deal with it!”.

Also, what shadow said — one can experience a traumatic event and not be traumatized by it, that’s more common in natural disasters than human caused trauma, but it isn’t rare (or New Orleans would be empty).

One, Argenti has you so dead to rights on your prevarication and games-playing regarding trauma. You just look ridiculous.

In fact… every time you open your mouth and force Argenti to rebut you look more and more ridiculous. I’m way out of teaspoons to engage with you, Ark-troll, but you look so ridiculous that, frankly, you are discrediting your cause. Extremely.

And your cause had no credit to begin with.

@Shadow:

What determines that is whether or not the incident was legally consentual, with the understanding that it could lead to that level of injury.

Not necessarily true. Many jurisdictions hold that even if you consented, some acts of assault are things you can’t consent to, that it remains criminal even in the presence of assault.

This leads to situations where a lot of BDSM play is technically illegal at the time it is occurring. (I can scare some links up on that if necessary)

…note that the untrue part is not the part where Akky-troll was totally wrong, please! (I know Ak is just dying to jump out and ‘A-ha!’ here and claim this vindicates him, when it just makes him even more wrong–Shadow’s overall point stands up very well)

re: BDSM // consent — you’re correct on that one, and whether one could ever consent or not doesn’t have bearing on how terribly wrong the troll is, considering the seemingly higher than average rate of kinky people around here, it may be an important note all the same. And it isn’t just the sort of BDSM that could be seen as assault, obscenity clauses still make photos of bondage illegal in places. CT’s obscenity law includes this ass definition —

“(7) “Sado-masochistic abuse” means flagellation or torture by or upon a person clad in undergarments, a mask or bizarre costume, or the condition of being fettered, bound or otherwise physically restrained on the part of one so clothed.”

Sending pictures of a bound person (in “bizarre costume”) is illegal even if all parties involved consent, something I end up reminded my CT FWB of all the fucking time.

That note has nothing to do with the troll and is more a pet peeve // the more you know (the less likely you are to get arrested). And no, they don’t define “bizarre costume” (of course not).

Aktivarum: Which Assange disputes being the important part. But hey! Who listens to a “rapist”, never mind no rape proven yet. Treat his words as unimportant and her as undeniable.

Nope. Nice piece of fish.

Treat it as an account in dispute. I am sure you take the denials of everyone accused of a crime as the more likely version to be true.

Since when is “mostly” and “all sex” even remotely compatible statements? I do not care about all sex, I talk about what is generally true.

What you talk about is, “The World According to the Fantasies of Aktivarum”. Feel free to provide links to studies which support these views, or admit that you are making shit up.

There is a huge difference between saying people act only ONE way and saying people can act several ways except ONE.

No, they are exactly the same. You are saying all people will not do that one thing, ergo everyone who doesn’t do that thing is not a member of group A, which means you are saying all people will act a certain way.

Are you so stupid as to think (contra all evidence) that we are so stupid as to fall for this?

Yeah, I had it as “consentual” first, but then i changed it to “legally consentual” for the simple reason that I’ve been in Canada for over 10 yrs now, and I still don’t understand what constitutes assault lolll. But that consentual BDSM play can be considered assault is even whackier than I was expecting!! Do you know if that’s only in the US, or is it common to North America?

@Argenti
I appear to be having a pun-y day
Well, if it eats all its vegetables, it’ll grow up to be a biiiig day!!

Shadow — I’m not finding anything on Canada right off, I’ll keep looking, but if you fall under UK law, then yeah it’s similar. Try the wiki pages on legal consent and the questionable NSFW one on consent in BDSM. (Top picture there is a bound, but covered, woman)

I can’t find anything really on Canada, wiki’s BDSM and the law page has some, but not much. (Again, questioning SFW, top pic is the back and bound hands of someone in a tutu.)

Aktivarum — that first link, scroll down to the section on STDs — this is why condom =/= birth control pill. It isn’t about the potential for pregnancy, no matter how much “joking” about pregnancy may have occurred. It’s a legal standard that existed before Assange refused to use a rubber.

“No trauma response within the first month is ever PTSD btw, it’s called an acute stress reaction at that point. Note the example wiki uses — “After being attacked and stabbed, Austrian empress Elisabeth of Bavaria boarded a ship, unaware of the severity of her condition as a consequence of an acute stress reaction. Bleeding to death from a puncture wound to the heart, Elisabeth’s last words were, ‘What happened to me?’””

Empress Elisabeth seem to not even have been aware of having been attacked. The weapon being concealed and very thin, the attack hidden as a man stumbling and pushing her with his hand, adrenalin concealing her pain and finally most important her tight corsette making the bleeding from the heart very very slow this the reason she could walk 92 m before death.

When younger I had an accident and I know perfectly well what its like to have serious bleeding, feeling hardly any pain and being able to walk from the place of accident to someplace else to lie down and call for help. I was not stressed at all although serious bleeding. Its hard to be stressed when not knowing anything.

Did he just…are you seriously…excuse me while I go put on a corset, maybe it’ll restrict blood flow to my brain enough to manage to see things from your stupid perspective.

First, that whole corsets mean you can’t breathe thing? It’s known bullshit. It’s a quaint excuse for fainting couches because the truth is they existed for um (the delicate should stop reading now) they existed for the relief of “hysteria”, ie manual sex performed by a doctor, or housemaid. The whole fainting part is just to preserve delicate sensibilities (and the dignity of the women who owned said furniture). Did you think I just magically learned about Victorian England on the spot to taunt you? Corsets, they really don’t work like that.

Second, holy shit. I bounced off a cliff face once while rappelling, no clue I was bleeding until I got to the bottom and got asked if I knew my elbows were a bloody mess. You knew you’d had an accident, I knew I went elbow first into the cliff face, she knew (at the least) that she’d been hit in the chest. That the severity of her condition was not readily apparent, despite her inability to walk on her own was very likely from the stress of being assassinated.

Do try disproving that the Donner party or Titanic survivors showed amazing calmness.

And really, it isn’t hard to breathe in a corset, heat stroke is a bigger risk. Also, you clearly read the wiki on her, not just the acute stress reaction page, and yet missed that her actual last words are reported as — “What has happened?”

Oh and btw? You just disagreed with your last opinion — that no one could ever behave normally after a traumatic event, disproven with your own story even. Please pick a position and stick with it.

Shorter version re: corsets — the corset didn’t help her any, the part where it was a teeny tiny wound did.

And most of the effect comes from widening the hips to shrink the waist by comparison, assuming it’s less than 70f / ~21c they’re actually pretty comfortable (can’t slouch, so your back will appreciate it).

“Empress Elisabeth seem to not even have been aware of having been attacked. The weapon being concealed and very thin, the attack hidden as a man stumbling and pushing her with his hand, adrenalin concealing her pain and finally most important her tight corsette making the bleeding from the heart very very slow this the reason she could walk 92 m before death.”

You can’t even get your theory on the Empress straight — did she not know she was attacked, or did adrenalin conceal the pain? Having a man stumble into you isn’t usually nearly enough to cause pain concealing adrenalin. (um, duh?)

Considering she was only able to board the boat by walking with support, going to guess she knew she was attacked, just didn’t realize how severe her wound was.

And even tight lacing corsets don’t restrict blood flow FFS. And just for extra lulz, she’s reported to have stopped tight lacging before 1862 (2+ decades before her death) — “Although on her return to Vienna in August 1862, a lady-in-waiting reported that “she eats properly, sleeps well, and does not tight-lace anymore””

When younger I had an accident and I know perfectly well what its like to have serious bleeding, feeling hardly any pain and being able to walk from the place of accident to someplace else to lie down and call for help. I was not stressed at all although serious bleeding. Its hard to be stressed when not knowing anything.

Akky–I’m going to say some things that seem mean here. But I want you to know that this is an extension of your argument, and that I don’t really think nor endorse any of this, because it’s mean and cold-hearted and bastardly. Okay?

Well, hell, you couldn’t have been hurt that bad! You walked someplace else–and you just said you weren’t stressed! I guess it couldn’t have been serious bleeding at all if you weren’t stressed. Obviously you made the story up after the fact to get somebody else in trouble.

Was that hurtful, Aktivarum? When I audited your response?

I can go on for another twenty pages like that if you don’t get the point.

“Treat it as an account in dispute. I am sure you take the denials of everyone accused of a crime as the more likely version to be true.”

Thats called “innocent until proven guilty” thus… yes we do assume people to likely be innocent unless proven otherwise. There are specific political reasons for this having to do with convicting the innocent being way worse than guilty people not being punished.

“What you talk about is “The World According to the Fantasies of Aktivarum”

What you talk about is the world according to victim studies based on psychoanalysis in the 70s. That method has been debunked due to studies saying whatever shit the psychoanalytic people wanted em to say.

“Feel free to provide links to studies which support these views, or admit that you are making shit up.”

You must be kidding. I am the only person in the room who have even linked to a study here. Most people here do nothing but criticism and hide their own ideas.

“No, they are exactly the same. You are saying all people will not do that one thing, ergo everyone who doesn’t do that thing is not a member of group A, which means you are saying all people will act a certain way.”

Again, I talk about what is generally true and what is likely to be true. You use minorities as the most important factor. Thats the difference!

“Are you so stupid as to think (contra all evidence) that we are so stupid as to fall for this?”

Check your own presented evidence. You ask other people for studies while presenting links to none. Start producing own view instead of basing your status at attacking others.

ithiliana — I do the same. I hit myself with the hammer putting ikea shit together (note, if ikea says to use a hammer, use massive caution) — never been sure if I chipped the bone or not, took long enough to heal that I assume I did. I had guests over when I did it, put down the hammer and walked calmly to the cold water faucet without a sound, took them a good 5 min to realize I’d just hammered my hand.

It’s a survival mechanism I think, some sort of “can’t freak out yet” thing. See, if ev-psych studied how screaming at the saber tooth tiger got you eaten, it’d be less nonsense.

Not that my hammer story really compares, but even I was amazed I didn’t even yelp when I did it (and yes, I am the sort to not bother getting minor broken bones set, walked around on a broken toe once…I don’t really recommend this)

“What you talk about is the world according to victim studies based on psychoanalysis in the 70s. That method has been debunked due to studies saying whatever shit the psychoanalytic people wanted em to say. ”

Huh what? No, seriously, WHAT? Because that psych degree? Yeah I learned about 5 min about the history of psychoanalysis, it hasn’t been popular since more like the 50s…Wtf is that even supposed to mean?

“You must be kidding. I am the only person in the room who have even linked to a study here. Most people here do nothing but criticism and hide their own ideas.”

Oh that’s fucking bullshit and you know it, do expect I’ll be quoting myself in a moment here.

“Again, I talk about what is generally true and what is likely to be true. You use minorities as the most important factor. Thats the difference!”

Minorities? For the sake of making sense of your gibberish, I’ll assume you mean that Pecunium’s “group A” is a smaller percentage of this imaginary population than “group B” — you said only group B exists, that group A has no members (see where you said that no one would act a certain way). Ergo a single member of group A disproves your theory.

We’re into formal logic now, and you are badly out logic-ed.

“Check your own presented evidence. You ask other people for studies while presenting links to none. Start producing own view instead of basing your status at attacking others.”

Spot That Fallacy!!

(shifting the) Burden of proof (see – onus probandi) – I need not prove my claim, you must prove it is false
Onus probandi – from Latin “onus probandi incumbit ei qui dicit, non ei qui negat” the burden of proof is on the person who makes the claim, not on the person who denies (or questions the claim). It is a particular case of the “argumentum ad ignorantiam” fallacy, here the burden is shifted on the person defending against the assertion

“Well, hell, you couldn’t have been hurt that bad! You walked someplace else–and you just said you weren’t stressed!”

Yes thats true, I did not know how bad I was injured cause it was in a place not visible to me. Thus the only thing telling me I had a need to be stressed was touching the injury and seeing blood on my hands. I felt absolutely no pain cause of the adrenaline.

“I guess it couldn’t have been serious bleeding at all if you weren’t stressed. Obviously you made the story up after the fact to get somebody else in trouble.”

I couldnt care less about you guessing/interpreting things instead of using the information given. Its the kind of psychoanalysis Paul Ricour called the “hermeneutics of suspicion” always pretending something need to be revealed in the text.

I couldnt care less about you guessing/interpreting things instead of using the information given. Its the kind of psychoanalysis Paul Ricour called the “hermeneutics of suspicion” always pretending something need to be revealed in the text.

No chance of the rape apologist recognizing the irony here?

I seriously think this one will never flounce or melt down. He will just be boring and rapey forever.

“You can’t even get your theory on the Empress straight — did she not know she was attacked, or did adrenalin conceal the pain?”

Did she know she was attacked? She most likely did not, had she known the ship was hardly the place to go for medical assistance. She was an old thin woman who got knocked down by physical force and needed help to walk after this. They didn t know she was stabbed.¨

No thats true, the point being she did not know adrenalin concealed the pain from a stabbing cause she was unaware of being stabbed at all (due to adrenaline also the wound being done with sharp very thin object blood not showingm it doesnt hurt, its not visible)

“Considering she was only able to board the boat by walking with support, going to guess she knew she was attacked, just didn’t realize how severe her wound was.”

She did not know she had a wound, neither did her company thats supposed to have been discovered first at the boat. She was a 60 year old thin woman who got knocked down and got help up.

“And even tight lacing corsets don’t restrict blood flow FFS.”

So you say, you dont really offer links/sources do you?

“And just for extra lulz, she’s reported to have stopped tight lacging before 1862 (2+ decades before her death) — “Although on her return to Vienna in August 1862, a lady-in-waiting reported that “she eats properly, sleeps well, and does not tight-lace anymore””

Yes in 1862, 2+ decades before her death (see how this can mean two different things?). I cant for my life realise how you would believe this proves her not again having tight lacings. But for lulz as you say how about seeing what sources say happen next 20 years.

“Other costumes exhibited at the Museum of Modern Art had external measures of 18 1/2 (bridal evening dress, 1854) and 19 1/2 (two, including the bodice through which the Empress was stabbed to death, repr. Joseph Wechsbert). In 1882, she is described by the Prince of Hesse as ”almost inhumanly slender.” In 1887 she was ”scarcely human in (her) fantastic attributes of hair and line” (Haslip, pp. 334 and 373). In 1890, she is still ”graceful, but almost too slender” and ”excessively slender, but still in terror of growing stout” (De Burgh, p.58; Corti, p.425).” (http://www.corsets.de/The_Empress_Elizabeth_of_Austria.php)

According to this her bodice was merely 1,5 inches less slender at death than she was during her marriage.

Couple irrelevant links from you. If those prove anything they prove why we still need feminism (but when I said that the last time you made some BS claim about giving you my view, like I wasn’t). And an ev-psych quote from you again, not proving wtf you said it did.

Three links to books and one to a NYT piece that again, doesn’t really say what you claim (one college remains not generalizable to the nation at large). Same NYT link, again, and an “intent is magic” claim.

80s film from Pecunium, proving the PUA idea isn’t new. (Note that unlike your books, you don’t need to buy the film to see it was made in 1980)

Same NYT article,yet again. Also, a Swedish page that seems to be an op-ed saying feminists are the ones who want women to change (ie support the patriarchy less, from what I can gather from the translation). And a third link saying um…the opposite of what you claim.

In other words — “You must be kidding. I am the only person in the room who have even linked to a study here. Most people here do nothing but criticism and hide their own ideas.” — complete and utter bullshit.

“Did she know she was attacked? She most likely did not, had she known the ship was hardly the place to go for medical assistance. She was an old thin woman who got knocked down by physical force and needed help to walk after this.”

…how do you define attacked? Hit with enough force to be unable to walk unassisted = attacked to most people (I mean, everyone basically).

And this? ““It is nothing but the fright”, she insisted.” Disproves your theory that it couldn’t have been an acute stress reaction (it would appear the Empress’s stress reaction was a combination of fear [“a fright”] and shock)

“No thats true, the point being she did not know adrenalin concealed the pain from a stabbing cause she was unaware of being stabbed at all”

Yet she was quite aware she’d been attacked, which is the fucking point.

“So you say, you dont really offer links/sources do you?”

Considering this is now a tangent on a tangent on a tangent, no, I didn’t, give me a moment and I’ll dredge some up (you’ll have to read Victorian English again though).

“I cant for my life realise how you would believe this proves her not again having tight lacings. But for lulz as you say how about seeing what sources say happen next 20 years.”

There are no other references to her tight lacing that I found, none after the 1860s (there are a couple before that, but that’s irrelevant).

“Other costumes exhibited at the Museum of Modern Art had external measures of 18 1/2 (bridal evening dress, 1854) and 19 1/2 (two, including the bodice through which the Empress was stabbed to death, repr. Joseph Wechsbert). In 1882, she is described by the Prince of Hesse as ”almost inhumanly slender.” In 1887 she was ”scarcely human in (her) fantastic attributes of hair and line” (Haslip, pp. 334 and 373). In 1890, she is still ”graceful, but almost too slender” and ”excessively slender, but still in terror of growing stout” (De Burgh, p.58; Corti, p.425).” (http://www.corsets.de/The_Empress_Elizabeth_of_Austria.php)

According to this her bodice was merely 1,5 inches less slender at death than she was during her marriage.

18.5 + 1.5 = 20″ // 51 cm; 19.5 + 1.5 = 21″ // 53 cm; I can’t seem to find average waist sizes in 1890, but first thing’s first, to size a corset you take your natural waist and subtract at least 2″, and up to 6″ — meaning a 20″ corset would fit a 22″ waist (56 cm), or up to a 26″ waist (66 cm). Adding that other 1″ gets us 23″-27″ (58.5-68.5 cm). Modern corset sizing info from Corset Connections.

As to average waists, I am finding absolute nothing from the 1980s, but — “Today’s waists…

…are on average 28″ to 34″. A reasonable expectation is 24″-28″ with moderate corseting and 20″-24″ with figure training. ” (here and matches the CDC data)

Now, as to the dangers of tight lacing — it received a lot of medical criticism as a “needless thing women do” basically, with about a half dozen doctors coming up with results like these — which would mean it might raise blood pressure, but sure doesn’t lower it. And corsets had been around for centuries before then, with no controversy — a non-tight laced corset is perfectly safe (well, assuming that level of dressed isn’t a heat stroke risk).

Any other corset related things you’d like cited? (For lulz, I wear a ~20″ corset too btw, it’s really not that tiny if you’re small to begin with)

Note also that 20-21″ was well within the average for corsets in that period — “Towards the end of the 19th century, waist dimensions had become very small, with 16″ to 20″ being the goal for young fashionable women and 21″ to 26″ for the more mature.” From here and note the bit about playing sports while tight laced.

For some reason, and I don’t know why, my response when something bad happens is to go into a very calm, quiet, place where my focus is entirely on “what can I do to fix this.”

I’m kind of like that, too. Just one hour after surviving an F5 last year, I was cracking jokes and making decisions about what to do. That doesn’t mean I wasn’t traumatized. It’s just that morbid humor was my coping mechanism. While I appeared calm on the outside both during and after the tornado, I was very shook up on the inside. I was in shock at that time, and that the shock made it possible for me to do what I had to do to keep me and my kids safe.

If rape survivors’ shock is anything like that, it’s makes perfectly good sense that they could go to a party or laugh right after their trauma. It doesn’t mean they weren’t traumatized; it just means their minds may not be processing everything yet.

Also, what shadow said — one can experience a traumatic event and not be traumatized by it, that’s more common in natural disasters than human caused trauma, but it isn’t rare (or New Orleans would be empty).

That’s amazing. It wasn’t possible for me. Then again, like ithiliana said, not everyone responds the same way to a traumatic event.

I couldnt care less about you guessing/interpreting things instead of using the information given.

I get the impression that where most people have a brain, you have a little goldfish going around in circles, forgetting its own argument over and over.

(Because you apparently need everything spelled out really, really explicitly: you correctly figured out that when someone else disputes your lived experience by saying, “no, if that had really happened you would have acted differently,” that is a dumb argument! Good job! So when YOU dispute someone else’s lived experience by saying, “no, if that had really happened you would have acted differently,” can you tell me what that is?)

Oh and btw? It sounds a lot like the Empress may’ve been anorexic and maybe her waist size and how much corseting was a factor aren’t quite so correlated — most people who don’t have eating disorders are not ”excessively slender, but still in terror of growing stout” — that last bit is part of the diagnostic criteria for anorexia, “intense fear of gaining weight” (citation)

bionic mommy — that’s more common in natural disasters, not some magic trauma proof bubble (don’t we all wish). Iirc it’s that human caused disasters come with an extra layer of suddenly having to face how evil humanity can be, while natural disasters are (generally) unavoidable. It’s the betrayal part basically.

Shit, I can’t find the source of that theory now, but here are the rates that cause the o.O? response from psych researchers.

bionic mommy — that’s more common in natural disasters, not some magic trauma proof bubble (don’t we all wish). Iirc it’s that human caused disasters come with an extra layer of suddenly having to face how evil humanity can be, while natural disasters are (generally) unavoidable. It’s the betrayal part basically.

That makes sense. Your PDF link was very informative, especially the chart showing the intersection between which traumas are terror inducing, which ones are betrayal, and which are both.

bionic mommy — just glad what I meant is clear now, as I certainly wasn’t trying to say that natural disasters cannot produce PTSD, just that it isn’t as common (I mean 49% of rape survivors?! Holy shit)

It’s not even that he’s out of his league (which he is), it’s that his logical engine is running on empty. That or he bought a Perpetual Logic Machine from Acme Patented Perpetual Motion Division.

re trauma: I broke my ankle in a motorcycle wreck. I got back on the bike, and didn’t actually go to the hospital until more than 24 hours later.

A friend of mine was shot. He didn’t realise it until his boss pointed out the blood, on both sides of his shirt.

It’s not the corsets, it’s the shock.

Ronald Reagan didn’t think he was shot. It wasn’t until he got to the hospital (taken as a matter of course whenever someone shoots at the president), that he found out… had he not gone to the hospital, he would have died.

Aktivarum: Thats called “innocent until proven guilty” thus… yes we do assume people to likely be innocent unless proven otherwise. There are specific political reasons for this having to do with convicting the innocent being way worse than guilty people not being punished.

No, it’s not. Innocent until proven guilty is a precept of law, relating to the legal status of the accused. It doesn’t mean we think everything the accused says is true until they are convicted. It also doesn’t mean that people can’t read the accounts of the events and come to personal opinions. I, for example, am firmly convinced that the cops who beat Rodney King are guilty of assault under color of authority, assault with a deadly weapon, assault with intent to maim.

I think O.J. Simpson isn’t guilty of the charges which were made against him (that is I think the prosecutions theory of the case is impossible, the evidence presented untenable. If he was involved he did not act alone).

Lots of people disagree with my conclusions on both cases. None of which has anything to do with wheter or not those people were telling the truth when they were making statements to the police.

You must be kidding. I am the only person in the room who have even linked to a study here. Most people here do nothing but criticism and hide their own ideas.

I am not kidding in the least. You are making the affirmative claims. The person making such a claim has the burden of proof (just like the prosecution does against Assange… innocent until proven guilty. Go ahead, prove your case).

Also you are lying when you say no one else has linked to a study, because I did, (three, studies IIRC, and google comparisons to debunk your claims on “Master PUA status, as well as various other links to outside sources) you ignored it. So go ahead, check my presented evidence.

Check Howard Bannisters. Check Argentis.

Or don’t. But Stop Lying

Check your own presented evidence. You ask other people for studies while presenting links to none. Start producing own view instead of basing your status at attacking others.

What? If I’m not presenting anything but my own view (instead of studies) why are you asking for more of my own view? Once again you can’t keep your story straight from one sentence to the next.

Lol, that’s gotta be it, he’s been at this since the 6th — two weeks ago tomorrow.

“It’s not the corsets, it’s the shock.”

His claim was, I think, that she bled slower than normal because of tight lacing, when:
1) There’s no evidence she was tight lacing, and there is evidence she’d stopped tight lacing years before.
2) Tight lacing may raise blood pressure, but certainly doesn’t lower it, meaning she’d have bled faster.

Either that or his claim is she didn’t know she’d been attacked, just thought she was hit in the chest (and that’s not an attack).

(Btw, I agree on the Rodney King class, and kind of disagree on OJ, but that’s more based on things like “If I Did It”)

I also disagree on OJ. I think he did it, based on the history of how he abused Nicole. She had left him, and that’s the time he would be most likely to kill her. I also think the LAPD framed him, even though he was already guilty. Those are just my opinions, though, and since I wasn’t on the jury it really doesn’t matter what I think.

See that, Aktivarum? The jury acquitted him, and I still think he’s guilty. I have the right to believe whatever I want about whatever case is in the news. The idea of innocent until proven guilty is supposed to be the rule in the criminal justice system, but private citizens can think whatever they want.

I read the coroner’s reports. I saw footage of his lack of agility from a few year’s before (at a birthday party where a nine-year old jumping into his arms almost caused him to collapse because he’s got impact related arthritis of the knees. I read accounts, from other witnesses of his interactions with Nicole. Recall that she’d left him something like two years before.

The evidence the LAPD provided (specifically the blood evidence) was bullshit. There was some framing going on.

I also know there were two similar murders in the same area which the LAPD said and still says; they being unsolved, were gang related.

Oh, BTW, Aktivarum, notice that we (feminists) are having a difference of opinion about crimes a man may have committed against women.

And no one is saying that I am an evil person, revoking my feminist card or that I will never be get laid in this town again (well, the odds of my being in Guelph anytime in the immediate future are slim, so tonight may be my last chance for quite some time. I shall try not to be too disconsolate about it).

Aktivarum — Since you seem to get your views on rape from bad TV, go through a few pages of Project Unbreakable for what rape really looks like.

Trigger warning on that — “This photography project was created in October of 2011 by Grace Brown. Grace works with survivors of sexual assault, photographing them holding a poster with a quote from their attacker.”

You homework, in the course called “how to be a decent human being” is to click each of those links, and then review everything you’ve said so far in this thread. Particularly this line — “I have never said Assange was a great guy doing nothing wrong. The case is about defining rape in ways that can be proven. Which actually helps real rape victims cause police do not have infinite resources and most cases doesnt even reach the courts.”

You are not helping. And if you managed to get through all of those still thinking you know all about how rape victims react? You fail “being a decent human being” and neither I, nor anyone else, can help you.

“See that, Aktivarum? The jury acquitted him, and I still think he’s guilty. I have the right to believe whatever I want about whatever case is in the news.”

You probably did not read what I was writing. The point was you must start with the assumption of innocence. Guilt must be based on evidence – innocence doesnt! Thus what I said had nothing about you having to agree with the court decisions. I said if you cant prove crime you cant claim crime.

“The idea of innocent until proven guilty is supposed to be the rule in the criminal justice system, but private citizens can think whatever they want.”

Any person can think what they want. Thought-crime is a ridiculous idea. However the point when talking about a crime is people cant be treated as guilty when not found guilty. They cant be assumed guilty based on lack of evidence showing them innocent. Also just the stories from one of the sides prove nothing.

“It also doesn’t mean that people can’t read the accounts of the events and come to personal opinions. I, for example, am firmly convinced that the cops who beat Rodney King are guilty of assault under color of authority, assault with a deadly weapon, assault with intent to maim.”

You can think whatever you want, and say whatever you want, thats the upside of living under the system of “liberal democracy” instead of dictatorship. The downside is other people can do the same thing. However you can not TREAT persons not found guilty as if they were guilty. There is the action – there is the crime – innocent means no crime. Your own opinion on crime simply doesnt matter. Nothing is a crime cause you say it is! Crime itself is decided by the authority handling such matters.

“I think O.J. Simpson isn’t guilty of the charges which were made against him (that is I think the prosecutions theory of the case is impossible, the evidence presented untenable. If he was involved he did not act alone).”

It doesnt matter! I you have a problem with the verdict you are to criticize the people deciding it. OJ is not one of them.

“Lots of people disagree with my conclusions on both cases. None of which has anything to do with wheter or not those people were telling the truth when they were making statements to the police.”

Again, it doesnt matter.

“I am not kidding in the least. You are making the affirmative claims.”

Everyone is implicitly or explicitly making affirmative claims! Science is not about absolute truth! Science is about comparisons finding which explanations (of the ALTERNATIVES) is more likely. Since most people here are to chicken to even dare tell people what is their claim the only thing happening is me telling a claim and others attacking that claim. Very simple! Same as when evolutionary theory makes a claim and Intelligent design attacks it for not being perfect. The ID people don t wanna talk about their own views and neither do people here. In fact most links offered are not a view at all – but people telling what is wrong with other views. The message being not knowledge – but what people dont know.

“The person making such a claim has the burden of proof (just like the prosecution does against Assange… innocent until proven guilty. Go ahead, prove your case).”

Thats where you are wrong. While in The assange case its the matter of guilty or not. In science and politics its the matter about COMPARING which one of two flawed theories works best. Thats the purpose of science, to be actually used! If people build cars by telliing what is wrong with other cars you would not even be able to drive a car today cause people would never build them – they would just sabotage competiton.

Pecunium — “Treat it as an account in dispute. I am sure you take the denials of everyone accused of a crime as the more likely version to be true.”

Aktivarum — “Thats called “innocent until proven guilty” thus… yes we do assume people to likely be innocent unless proven otherwise. There are specific political reasons for this having to do with convicting the innocent being way worse than guilty people not being punished.”

Pecunium — “No, it’s not. Innocent until proven guilty is a precept of law, relating to the legal status of the accused. It doesn’t mean we think everything the accused says is true until they are convicted. It also doesn’t mean that people can’t read the accounts of the events and come to personal opinions. I, for example, am firmly convinced that the cops who beat Rodney King are guilty of assault under color of authority, assault with a deadly weapon, assault with intent to maim.”

First, +1 point in the Spot That Fallacy category of cherry-picking. Second, he mocked your insistence we have to treat Assange as innocent, you replied with the legalese of “innocent until proven guilt”, to which he replied that “innocent until proven guilty is a precept of law” — meaning everyone not in the courtroom can have any opinion they like, he then gave examples.

At which point pulled your least logical “argument” yet (and damned does that take skill) — I can’t even parse together a potential view point from this mess, and I’ve had competent arguments with 9 year olds. Let’s attempt to pick out anything that might make coherent sense when all your sentences actually go together?

“The point was you must start with the assumption of innocence. Guilt must be based on evidence – innocence doesnt!”

This is true in the case of court decisions, not in the case of public opinion, and since, as I repeat, none of us is going to be on the Assange case, the legallese is utterly irrelevant to our opinions on his case, or him in general.

“Thus what I said had nothing about you having to agree with the court decisions.”

No, it didn’t, despite the fact we were not discussing court decisions but public opinion. Which is what Pecunium was trying to note with the above (I think, but his arguments are much easier to parse, being coherent and all).

“I said if you cant prove crime you cant claim crime.”

None of us are making legal claims. How much clearer could that be? Any opinion expressed in this thread is not the opinion of anyone legally involved in the Assange case (now might be a good time to fess up to a conflict of interest if that’s not true, but considering no one but you reads Swedish, I doubt anyone here is involved).

“Any person can think what they want.”

*slow clap* Yes, that’s what Pecunium was saying.

“However the point when talking about a crime is people cant be treated as guilty when not found guilty. They cant be assumed guilty based on lack of evidence showing them innocent.”

Legally, yep, but we weren’t making legally binding opinions.

“Also just the stories from one of the sides prove nothing.”

In court that’s about half true, in public opinion? *dies laughing* You ever read a court case before? I’m guessing not, or you’d realize just how foolish some defendants are, Manson’s leap over the table doesn’t really require much other info to go “probably not safe to have him in court”.

“However you can not TREAT persons not found guilty as if they were guilty if you have legal bearing on the case.”

Fixed that, and since none of us do this remains utterly irrelevant to how we view Assange and his accusers.

“There is the action – there is the crime – innocent means no crime. Your own opinion on crime simply doesnt matter.”

Now you’re getting it! Since we aren’t legally involved, we can hold whatever opinion we like.

“It doesnt matter! I you have a problem with the verdict you are to criticize the people deciding it. OJ is not one of them.”

Note the avoidance of the Rodney King case, might that be because thinking the defendants are guilty and hating them for that just makes too much sense to ignore? Then again, it’s beginning to feel like you have some sort of anti-logic shield. So let me say it again — since we aren’t legally involved, we can have whatever opinion we like — that includes who to blame, and for what.

“Again, it doesnt matter. ”

Um…since none of us are legally involved opinion was the entire point of this bit of your derailing the glossary. What is this randomness about science? That will require its own comment.

“There are at least two flawed assumptions in this statement. First feminists (like all political groups) are defined not what they say but what they DO. Second feminists are not defined what they are against, they are defined by what they promote. *** Thus in what way do you mean the society feminists wanna build would prevent girls from doing the slutty thing?”

“Science is not about absolute truth! Science is about comparisons finding which explanations (of the ALTERNATIVES) is more likely.”

So are the laws of thermodynamics no longer laws? Some of it is absolute truth, some of it is straight up math that’s either true, or false, no comparisons. In any case, law is not science, t othe point my lawyer student best friend regularly laments this.

“Since most people here are to chicken to even dare tell people what is their claim the only thing happening is me telling a claim and others attacking that claim. Very simple!”

Please reread the last 6 pages of comments — we’ve been making plenty of claims, both opinion claims, and science claims. You ignore the latter and demand evidence of the former. Also, pot? Meet kettle! (That’d be internet shorthand for “well it that ain’t the pot calling the kettle black…”)

“Same as when evolutionary theory makes a claim and Intelligent design attacks it for not being perfect. The ID people don t wanna talk about their own views and neither do people here.”

Yeah, see above, we have been giving our views, repeatedly, with citations. You either ignore them, or should maybe see a neurologist about that memory issue you’re having.

“In fact most links offered are not a view at all – but people telling what is wrong with other views.”

First it’s “Everyone is implicitly or explicitly making affirmative claims!” but now it’s “people telling what is wrong with other views.” Pick a view and stick with it. You can’t even keep your own view straight for an entire comment and you’re claiming we’re not offering views? When we offer opinion you demand citations, when we find examples of other people sharing those views, you’ve consistently either called them anecdotes, or simply ignored them. (You do remember we can scroll up right? You might be advised to try likewise if it is some sort of memory issue and not intentionally ignoring things)

“The message being not knowledge – but what people dont know.”

What you don’t know can be knowledge. You’re officially the scariest type of person of all — the kind who thinks he doesn’t need to be told things he doesn’t know. Considering what he went on to do with his one intelligent statement, it pains me to quote Rumsfeld, but nonetheless —

“[T]here are known knowns; there are things we know that we know.
There are known unknowns; that is to say there are things that, we now know we don’t know.
But there are also unknown unknowns – there are things we do not know, we don’t know.”

You are, apparently, of the believe that having something go from an “unknown unknown” to a “known unknown” is a bad thing. And that is simply scary.

“Thats where you are wrong. While in The assange case its the matter of guilty or not. In science and politics its the matter about COMPARING which one of two flawed theories works best. Thats the purpose of science, to be actually used!”

See above, law is not science, etc.

“If people build cars by telliing what is wrong with other cars you would not even be able to drive a car today cause people would never build them – they would just sabotage competiton.”

And there’s the inevitable red herring! Could you try to go one comment without peddling fish? Oh and btw? Engineering a good percentage not making the same mistakes the other guy did. Hell, art is mostly not making the same mistakes you previously did. Again, your views a scary, do you really consider learning from your mistakes so dangerous as to “sabotage competition”?

Exactly what it looks like, me telling you the premise on deciding views for political organisations. Meaning if communists build gulags and talk about equlity – Communism is not about equality, its about gulags. Thats what they do. Thus “feminism want/try bla bla….” is not a proper description of feminism. Feminists shutting down lots of male athletic college teams due to feminist interpretation of Title IX however thats feminism.

Now let me hear again what feminism is about….

“Please reread the last 6 pages of comments — we’ve been making plenty of claims, both opinion claims, and science claims.”

Science is not a view, Science is a method finding things out that may support several views. The scientific solution to this is called testing. The political solution to this is called democracy. The opposition to this is often called diversity politics – a self-designated socialconstructivist elite wanting to rule a majority population.

“First it’s “Everyone is implicitly or explicitly making affirmative claims!” but now it’s “people telling what is wrong with other views.” Pick a view and stick with it.”

1. When you (people in general) attack a view, you support an own view, Some (not in general) people saying what is bad just dont wanna say what they think would be good.
2. Most links offered here (not in general real world) are not own views but attacks. Telling what is wrong while not telling what is right.

“When we offer opinion you demand citations, when we find examples of other people sharing those views, you’ve consistently either called them anecdotes, or simply ignored them. ”

3. I started demand citations when people started demanding them of me (lots of pics) while not demanding them of other people.
4. When I say things are anecdotal it is about them being chosen. For instance “none of my friends voted Bush” would mean you dont choose friends voting for Bush. It would say nothing of the pulling results.

“What you don’t know can be knowledge. You’re officially the scariest type of person of all — the kind who thinks he doesn’t need to be told things he doesn’t know. ”

Actually I am the kind that needs to be told not only what is wrong with what I know but what is right with what YOU know. Thus if you for example criticize my country you better have a country with better results. Don t attack Usain Bolts running style!

“You are, apparently, of the believe that having something go from an “unknown unknown” to a “known unknown” is a bad thing. And that is simply scary.”

I deal with what – based on things we know – is more propable to work in real life. Your obsession with not knowing is close to the postmodern wish the people thinking we cant know anything should be the real experts. Alan Sokal had a lot to say about that.

“Oh and btw? Engineering a good percentage not making the same mistakes the other guy did.”

Well, not doing anything at all would obviously mean never making any of the mistakes the other guy doing something did thus people not building shit would be great engineers.

Its the same reason some idiots say women dont cause wars. They see war as a mistake women doing almost nothing – did not do.

“This is true in the case of court decisions, not in the case of public opinion”

Which public are you talking about? The population in general or just some more visible people in media and other places?

“and since, as I repeat, none of us is going to be on the Assange case, the legallese is utterly irrelevant to our opinions on his case, or him in general.”

Any opinion on him being guilty or innocent of crime is bs compared to the supreme court decision based on the evidence. We can have opinion on the actions – not whether they constitute a crime. The public cant declare anyone a criminal.

“No, it didn’t, despite the fact we were not discussing court decisions but public opinion.”

You were discussing whether or not he was guilty of a crime. You cant treat him as guilty if the court declare him innocent. We dont have “thought laws” so feel happy to think he is a criminal.

“None of us are making legal claims. How much clearer could that be?”

If the courts declare him innocent and you claim he is guilty and spread that opinion then you are saying even when declared innocent you are free to treat him as a criminal.

“Any opinion expressed in this thread is not the opinion of anyone legally involved in the Assange case”

In what way does that matter? The point being we should not have any peoples court at all. Public Opinion on crime should not matter. Innocent means innocent.

“Legally, yep, but we weren’t making legally binding opinions.”

No you are talking a about peoples court. Or perhaps experts court. Most of the time they do not present representativ statistics in these “media courts”

“In court that’s about half true, in public opinion? *dies laughing* You ever read a court case before? I’m guessing not, or you’d realize just how foolish some defendants are”

Yes I have read court cases. Several in fact.

“Manson’s leap over the table doesn’t really require much other info to go “probably not safe to have him in court”

Relevance?

“Note the avoidance of the Rodney King case, might that be because thinking the defendants are guilty and hating them for that just makes too much sense to ignore?”

Not at all. Clearly the actions committed by the police officers should have been decided criminal in court but when this did not happen, the police officers were innocent. Thus the wrongdoing was done by the court who did not give a guilty verdict.

Btw, this is again an example of two alternatives that both suck (are not perfect) and choosing the least sucky one.

2 of the police officers later were given guilty verdict by a federal court.

I couldnt care less about you guessing/interpreting things instead of using the information given. Its the kind of psychoanalysis Paul Ricour called the “hermeneutics of suspicion” always pretending something need to be revealed in the text.

I give you extra points for not screwing up the phrasing of “couldn’t care less.”

Secondly: you don’t care about me guessing things instead of using the information given?

On the topic of court stuff… Notice that while the popular phrase is “Innocent until proven guilty” is used, the actual official verdicts are “Guilty/Not Guilty” rather than “Guilty/Innocent” or “Not Innocent/Innocent.” Why? I dunno… But maybe because in a court the prosecutor is trying to prove the defendant is guilty. Failing to do so means that the prosecutor has not met their burden of proof, but that doesn’t mean that the defendant has successfully positively proved their innocence.

“Innocent until proven guilty” means that its the prosecutor’s job to show guilt, not the defendant’s job to show innocence. Thus failure to reach a guilty verdict does not necessarily mean “innocent,” it just means “failure to be proven guilty.”

Aktivarum: You probably did not read what I was writing. The point was you must start with the assumption of innocence. Guilt must be based on evidence – innocence doesnt! Thus what I said had nothing about you having to agree with the court decisions. I said if you cant prove crime you cant claim crime.

Actually, this is completely backwards. That’s the principle of guilty when accused. The police don’t have to be able to prove crime when they claim it. Not in a system where the accused is presumed innocent until proven guilty.

If one had to have proof before the accusation, then the charge would be the same as a conviction. What happens in a system based on innocence is that someone claims a crime. It gets investigated. If there is enough evidence then a charge is brought and then the state has to substantiate it enough to convince a jury of the guilt of the accused.

The only people required to suspend their judgement are the jurors. Everyone else can bay for blood (as you are doing for the prosecutors in the Assange case) or not, as they see fit.

So long as the state abides by the verdict of the jury, it works (see Lizzie Borden).

They cant be assumed guilty based on lack of evidence showing them innocent.

Yes, they can.

However you can not TREAT persons not found guilty as if they were guilty.

This is true. I can’t imprison someone who is acquitted of a crime.

But that’s not what you are saying. You are saying I can’t look at the available evidence and come to a personal decision about the guilt of someone.

You are hypocritically saying this when you have done exactly that. You’ve decided that Assange is not-guilty (in part because you have a twisted idea of what rape is), and so have decided his accusers are guilty of a false accusation of rape.

And you are trying to browbeat us into refusing to say we think you are full of shit.

Everyone is implicitly or explicitly making affirmative claims!

Nope. You are saying “X is true”. We are saying prove it.

Science is about comparisons finding which explanations (of the ALTERNATIVES) is more likely.

Not really true, and not relevant, and not the way it works. Science is about testing a theory, and seeing if it describes a situation well. If it does, then it gets put in the “maybe box”. If it doesn’t it gets relegated to the dustbin of history.

It’s not about comparing one theory to another. It’s about comparing each theory to the facts of the world.

Same as when evolutionary theory makes a claim and Intelligent design attacks it for not being perfect. *

Correct, to a point. ID is saying Descent with modiification is wrong. They have to prove it (the wrongness). They are failing. They don’t have to prove ID is right. They could (and if they were smart, they would, but they aren’t, so they don’t) refuse to mention any alternate theory. Any disproof of Darwin would still be valid.

You keep trying to say PUA is science. Prove it.

You can’t, so you are flailing. (this is completely different from the problem of your self-serving definition of rape, and your lies about the evidence in the case against Assange; note, BTW, that I’ve not said one word about his guilt or innocence. Nor, actually, has Argenti. You, for some reason, seem to think that the actual evidence needs to be suppressed. A more cynical man than I might think that was because you think those facts actually indicate guilt. Such a, more cynical man, might think you were engaging in avoidant behavior, to keep himself from admitting that practices he engages [or would, given the opportunity] are those of a rapist).

Thats where you are wrong. While in The assange case its the matter of guilty or not. In science and politics its the matter about COMPARING which one of two flawed theories works best.”

Again, it’s not. Science is about disproving things. Those which aren’t yet disproven are treated as working, until they fail. No one has to provide alternate theories of why, only show that the one in front of them isn’t working. That’s what peer review is all about.

That you have such a twisted, and unworkable, idea of what, and why, science is explains a lot of the problems in your worldview, and why you are the victim of the con-men and cheats who sell EvPsych, and PUA.

*The ID people don t wanna talk about their own views and neither do people here.”

But a couple of your posts ago you complained that all I do is spout my own views? Which is it? I don’t cite studies (I have, you continue to pretend I haven’t, lying seems to be one of the few consistent things about your work), or I won’t give my own opinions?

If I do neither, then what have I been doing for the past two weeks or so?

Exactly what it looks like, me telling you the premise on deciding views for political organisations. Meaning if communists build gulags and talk about equlity – Communism is not about equality, its about gulags. Thats what they do.

Ok… I’ll run with this.

MRAs are about beating women, killing them, neglecting their children and advocating for rape, and brutalisation.

PUAs are about lying, cheating, manipulating and rape.

That was easy. Because those are the things they do. And what they do is the only thing that matters. It’s not a few bad apples, because one spoils the barrel.

Science is not a view, Science is a method finding things out that may support several views. The scientific solution to this is called testing. The political solution to this is called democracy. The opposition to this is often called diversity politics – a self-designated socialconstructivist elite wanting to rule a majority population.

Science isn’t about “supporting several views”, it’s about the best view. The one which matches all the data.

Gov’t, isn’t science. Any number of gov’ts may do just fine in securing personal liberties (which is my personal defintion of good gov’t). Some (a benevolent dictatorship… Think Bernadotte), may do better than a democoracy. Democracy, in fact, needs some checks, lest it run roughshod over the personal liberties of the weak (see how women were treated in democracies until recently).

That you conflate the two shows either incredible ignorance, or (sadly) a quite credible mendacity.

Given your opinions on rape, I’m going with mendacity; colored by ignorance. Assuming that no one is so good as to be able to spout the inanity you’ve been spouting on science, even in the face of explanation; and the ways in which you refuse to admit so much as the presence of counter-argument to most of your work, I am also pretty strongly on the side of literate, but stupid.

“Aktivarum — Since you seem to get your views on rape from bad TV, go through a few pages of Project Unbreakable for what rape really looks like.”

How do you know which rapes in Project Unbreaklable are real rapes? Do you assume any person thinking they were raped – in fact were raped? The first thing I checked was the ability to control context and content. They do not even answer that question. In their FAQ they link this page (http://postsecretcommunity.com/news-faq/secrets-true)

So basically if only I write some shit on a sign and send there I was raped. Not only once cause if you really wanna be popular in the feminist crown you should say stuff like “I was raped a second time by the police” that is great stuff for a political campaign. Ohh and do call it “rape survival” although the NORMAL result of rape is not death. That really is what propaganda-people would do.

“And if you managed to get through all of those still thinking you know all about how rape victims react? You fail “being a decent human being” and neither I, nor anyone else, can help you.”

Yes cause this information is so much better than the studies I linked and you were highly critical about? However THIS information you believe based on? Well nothing it would seem since they themselves specifically tell they view this as ART, not knowledge. This difference is one of the first things I described here.